Mediated Reality: University of Toronto RWM Project

Dr. Mann describes his WearComp (“Wearable Computer”) invention as a tool for “Mediated Reality”. WearComp originated in the context of photographic tools as true extensions of the mind and body and evolved into a philosophical basis for self-determination, characteristic of the Linux operating system that runs on WearComp.

As I wrote last month, I am an inventor
who likes to think outside the box and chose to use the Linux
operating system because it gives me a programming environment in
which the box is not welded shut. I described my framework for
human-machine intelligence which I call Humanistic Intelligence
(HI). I also described the apparatus of an invention I call
“WearComp” that embodies HI. In particular, I outlined some of
the reasons for choosing Linux for WearComp and emphasized how
problems like that of software fascism are much more pronounced on
WearComp than they are in the context of regular desktop computing.

In this article, I will explore practical uses of WearComp. I
will also explain how WearComp turns the traditional business model
of real-world information space (e.g., advertising) upside
down.

Summarizing briefly, WearComp is a wearable computational
device that provides the user with a self-created personal space.
The most fundamental issue of WearComp is that of personal
empowerment (see Resources 1). I will show by way of example how
WearComp provides the wearer with a self-created visual space. I
will also describe the concept of “Mediated Reality” and the use
of a “visual filter” that allows the wearer to create a visual
attention access control system.

Problem Statement

If the eye is the window to the soul, then our soul is
available for anyone to steal. Our visual attention is a valuable
resource that can be consumed by billboards, distracting
advertising and other material often thrust upon us against our
will.

Solitude is a valuable form of humanistic property all too
easily subject to theft.

I am taking the liberty of using these strongly judgmental
words—steal and theft. Such strong wording, however, is already
present in the context of intellectual property. We readily accept
terms like “software piracy”, which make an analogy between
someone who copies a floppy disk and someone who seizes control of
an ocean-going vessel, often killing everyone on board. An analogy
between such gruesome mass murder and copying software ought to
raise certain questions about our social value system. Thus,
against this backdrop, I believe that use of terms like theft and
steal are not out of line in the context of what I call humanistic
property.

Those who steal our solitude not only take away humanistic
property, but force material upon us that can put our lives in
danger.

Advertising is an evolving entity. In the old days, there
were fixed signs with a static display of company slogans. Once we
became accustomed to these signs, new ones were invented with more
distracting and vibrant colours and even moving parts to fight for
our attention. As we became accustomed to these signs, they were
made brighter. Concepts such as light chasers, lamp sequencers and
the like were introduced so that motion arising from sequentially
illuminated bulbs could further distract us.

Then came the pixel boards, which also got brighter as we
became accustomed to them. Some pixel boards use as many as 2000
watts per pixel. When lights this bright are put along major
highways, they pose a serious threat to road safety. Still, we do
our best to ignore these distractions and keep our eyes on the road
or on whatever task has our attention.

The latest trend is something I call “signal-band
advertising”. It tries to trick us by resituating advertising
(“noise”) into what we perceive to be a “signal” band. For
example, we are now seeing WWW banner advertisements with an
imitation of a cursor; thus, the user is momentarily tricked into
thinking there are two cursors on his screen. The advertisement
contains what looks like a cursor, which moves around very much
like a real cursor normally does. These kinds of ads are the
cyberspace equivalent of trying to get attention by yelling
“Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.

Another example of signal-band advertising exists on
parking-lot booms. By renting a sign on the boom of a parking lot,
advertisers can further confuse drivers by placing ads where only
road signs would normally be. We now need to distinguish between
advertising and important road signs, both of which are directly in
our path in the center of the road. The advertising is no longer
only off to the side of the road. This theft of visual attention
makes it that much harder to see stop signs and other important
traffic markers.

Perhaps next, advertisers will start to make their signs red
and octagon-shaped and hang them on lamp posts along the street, so
they will be able to grab even more of our attention. A red
octagon, with a product slogan in white letters in the center,
posted at a busy intersection could get lots of attention and would
be harder to ignore than traditional billboards. This is what I
mean by “signal-band advertising”.

Those who steal our visual attention are not content to just
clutter roads and open public space with advertising, but they
appear to also want to intrude on more private spaces as
well.